Air Corp Pilot Refused to Fly Minister in 2015

bkehoe

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Not sure of the specifics of RWY 35 at EICK, but a cloud base is NOT a requirement for an ILS Approach. The only requirement is to have the required RVR or adapted Vis at the Approach Ban Point.

For a standard Cat 1 Approach that is 550M.

750M RVR for RWY35 at Cork. 550m RVR for RWY 17 CAT I and 300M for RW17 CAT II (with non standard DH of 125ft). With the surface wind forecast either runway is available that day.

Point is the weather is good elsewhere, planning wise the flight could have legally gone ahead with the minister being warned that they may have to divert - the question should be were they given that option? Maybe he called to simply enquire as to why it had to be totally cancelled as opposed to giving it a try, in which case I wouldn't blame him at all and if I was the pilot transporting a VIP I'd certainly have no issues in explaining my decision making process to the person concerned.

Growler!!!

Cloudbase may not be a requirement but it certainly should come into your decision making model.
RVR required is 750m on RWY35.

You may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.

If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with the sentence above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.

So you don't have the RVR or DH required for the approach.

NewSigGuy

Growler!!! wrote: »

Cloudbase may not be a requirement but it certainly should come into your decision making model.
RVR required is 750m on RWY35.

You may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.

If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with the sentence above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.

So you don't have the RVR or DH required for the approach.

No Cloudbase does not come into your decision making process, for a Precision Approach it is only Vis/RVR, at the minimums you will see the Approach Lights and they are your guidance for the Visual Segment to the RWY, the shorter HIALS on RWY 35 leads to the Higher RVR requirement.

Yes after the ABP if the condition deteriorate you can continue to your applicable minimums and Land if you acquire the required visual Reference.

Growler!!!

Ah I see where I caused the confusion I used required rather than needed.

Both you and Bkehoe are correct cloudbase is NOT a requirement for Precision Approach.

Another question - has Rwy35 a CAT 2 approach?

NewSigGuy

Growler!!! wrote: »

Ah I see where I caused the confusion I used required rather than needed.

Both you and Bkehoe are correct cloudbase is NOT a requirement for Precision Approach.

Another question - has Rwy35 a CAT 2 approach?

No RWY 35 Is not CAT 2, most likely because of the Reduced Lights.

Davidth88

Interesting debate here . But to me the Commander of the aircraft has the last say. If he didn't want to fly because he felt the conditions were not acceptable then that's it.

I have to question why his ( or her ) CO have the minister his number . The CO should have supported his staff.

NewSigGuy

Davidth88 wrote: »

Interesting debate here . But to me the Commander of the aircraft has the last say. If he didn't want to fly because he felt the conditions were not acceptable then that's it.

I have to question why his ( or her ) CO have the minister his number . The CO should have supported his staff.

Absolutely Commander has the Authority, but only when the weather is outside of the Operators Limits.. Feelings don't really Count!

martinsvi

I think there's a bit of a confusion here, I know that for CAT1 you can begin your approach and not take ceiling into account, that's not the debate here.. instead what I'm trying to suggest that using a bit of local knowledge or experience, pilot could tell that in certain circumstances if you have OVC001, you will not see the runway at DH.. guys, take off your commercial flying hats off for the moment, and focus more on the profile of the mission. Going missed or sitting in a hold for half an hour probably wasn't good enough for the mission.

NewSigGuy

martinsvi wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a confusion here, I know that for CAT1 you can begin your approach and not take ceiling into account, that's not the debate here.. instead what I'm trying to suggest that using a bit of local knowledge or experience, pilot could tell that in certain circumstances if you have OVC001, you will not see the runway at DH.. guys, take off your commercial flying hats off for the moment, and focus more on the profile of the mission. Going missed or sitting in a hold for half an hour probably wasn't good enough for the mission.

Sure, the mission may not have been valid with those options, diverting or holding.
That doesn't change the conditions and the fact that it is valid to shoot and ILS with the minimum required Vis, the cloud base is irrelevant, the type of operator does not change that fact.
In CAT 1 conditions there is a very high likely hood of a successful Approach particularly in an auto coupled aircraft.
I haven't heard of local knowledge that changes that fact.

martinsvi

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I haven't heard of local knowledge that changes that fact.

I suppose what I was thinking was sea fog, or any strip that's near a bog/swamp on a cool summer night.. any local specialties where you know the fog is going to be so thick you can extend your arm and not see your fingers anymore - but then again, those wouldn't be CAT1 conditions anymore, so disregard that..

Stovepipe

Cork's weather conditions often have a mind of their own. Coveney, as a local, should have known that, and as a sailor himself, he should be well aware of the vagaries of the weather. I'd back the pilot 100%, no question. Calling the pilot directly or even calling his boss was unprofessional and disrespectful. Cork airport can often be closed in when even the city has clear weather and that's speaking as a local and a CPL holder. I worked on the King Air, back in the day, when it was doing VIP work and the pilot's decision was final and the DFA and the Office of the Taoiseach knew and understood that. Another point; if he had gone on the flight and had to divert, then Coveney would have ended up in Waterford or Farranfore or even back in Baldonnel and his nose would have been even further out of joint.

EchoIndia

Has anyone clarified what type of aircraft was to be used on the mission in question?

AGC

EchoIndia wrote: »

Has anyone clarified what type of aircraft was to be used on the mission in question?

We only have the Gulf Stream

The Cush

AGC wrote: »

We only have the Gulf Stream

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057405795

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n297pj

AGC

The Cush wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057405795

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n297pj

Apologies meant Lear

uck51js9zml2yt

ELM327 wrote: »

Fair play to the pilot for standing his ground.
I heard this on Newstalk this morning, what a ridiculous sense of self entitlement our political classes have.

You don't know the half of it

Pat Dunne

Scarlette Raspy Salad wrote: »

You don't know the half of it

Well tell us the half of it

The Rape of Lucretia

Scarlette Raspy Salad wrote: »

You don't know the half of it

That there is more to this story, not in the public domain, and the simple fog-pilots-decision-not-to-fly, that is public, is only one side of a more complicated scenario, and that the Minister may in fact have reasonable grounds for his complaint ?

ger664

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But Coveney as MoD should at least have known about the chain of command and not overridden it.

As MoD he would be the very top of that chain.

Technically the pilot (who is correct in this instance) has disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer.

durandal01

Stovepipe wrote: »

Cork's weather conditions often have a mind of their own. Coveney, as a local, should have known that, and as a sailor himself, he should be well aware of the vagaries of the weather. I'd back the pilot 100%, no question. Calling the pilot directly or even calling his boss was unprofessional and disrespectful. Cork airport can often be closed in when even the city has clear weather and that's speaking as a local and a CPL holder. I worked on the King Air, back in the day, when it was doing VIP work and the pilot's decision was final and the DFA and the Office of the Taoiseach knew and understood that. Another point; if he had gone on the flight and had to divert, then Coveney would have ended up in Waterford or Farranfore or even back in Baldonnel and his nose would have been even further out of joint.

Not just a local lad, I think he hails from the area on the coast south of EICK, right under the approach to RWY35 if my sources are correct .
Maybe he thought he knew better.

Gaoth Laidir

ger664 wrote: »

As MoD he would be the very top of that chain.

Technically the pilot (who is correct in this instance) has disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer.

As captain of the flight, he IS the most superior officer. He has to answer to no one.

Psychlops

EchoIndia wrote: »

Has anyone clarified what type of aircraft was to be used on the mission in question?

Helicopter pilot they are saying, so the use of an AW139 there...

Bazzy

JCX BXC wrote: »

Would first class on Iarnrod Eireann cut it? Or would you still be mixed in with too many working class for the liking of politicans? Remember that one time Shane Ross took the bus?

He tweeted the bus was great flew into work and that was at half 10 when the rest of the unwashed were already at their desks

evolving_doors

Politicians and personal govt. Taxis are nothing new
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/the-mystery-of-the-ministers-broken-down-car-355973.html

.Which politician got his ministerialife car to drop him to a helicopter to fly him home... and ministerial car to follow on and pick him up to complete the journey?

Leo and Simon are silver spoon boys so I suppose they're entitled to it all.

Stovepipe

This echoes what I said earlier....it was common practise for the/a Ministerial car to be at the airport at journey's end for the ministerial arse to be carried home, so it involved two cars; one to get to the Don, one to get home and vice versa. God forbid he would have to use his actual, personal car. The car he or she nominally pays for is still a Govt car, when all is said and done, driven by a Garda or, as was often the case, a local political apparatchik .......I was once present when a Minister's child was flown from Baldonnel to the home airport, having been flown back from Europe, because said child was bored when Daddy was off politicking in Europe. Child had no business being there in the first place. Both empty aircraft then returned to their start points......it's all very well the pilot standing up to the Minister, for good reason. It's what happens later that matters.